Clark Ties Bush in Poll

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ColoJohnBoy, Sep 22, 2003.

  1. ColoJohnBoy thread starter macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #2
    Well, not that it will matter. Bush has proved that a person can commit rampant election fraud, still lose the election, and STILL become President.
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    While I'm glad a poll, even this far out from the election, shows Clark, Kerry and others doing well against Bush I wouldn't make too much of it. As to Clark, I want to see how he preforms in the debates and how he explains his domestic agenda in much greater detail before I celebrate his ascendancy in the polls. So far I like what I see, but he hasn't been tested in the political process yet.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Clark also needs to make it clear what his positions are without sounding like he's either unsure, waffling, or trying to be all things to all people.

    I know he's got an opinion. I want to know that I heard it.
     
  4. MIMIC macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    #5
    According to the latest CNN Poll, Clark leads Bush by three percentage points (Bush at 46%; Clark at 49%).
     
  5. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #6
    -All

    IMHO Clark's only weakness is his inexperience with full-contact politics. I hope he can thicken his skin a bit.

    After that, I think he'd make a tremendous president - he's already got my vote.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Let's also not forget the role of money in the race. Any candidate the Democrats nominate will be facing an unprecedented Republican war-chest. The Bush administration is making the Clinton people look like the shrinking violets of fundraising, and that's no mean feat.
     
  7. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    i'd really like you to definitively prove that he committed rampant election fraud and actually lost the election. otherwise, there's no point in making such inflammatory, uneducated, and unprovable remarks.
     
  8. Macmaniac macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #9
    I think some of points came from name recognition and the wave one gets form announcing their candidcy. I'm all for Clark I think he'd be great, but I want to know his agenda first.
    The guy who does the Gallup Poll on CNN Frank Newport is from my town and his daughter is in my grade. He came in and explained to us that name recognition can greatly effect polls when someone bursts onto the scene, so only time will tell if Clark continues to do well.
     
  9. ColoJohnBoy thread starter macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #10
    Read this book.

    ....and this article

    ...and this website

    ...and this one

    And visit the links included on the website, expecially to Greg Palast's website.

    I do NOT make any decisions without thoroughly examining ALL the facts available to me.

    Election fraud was committed. Rampant election fraud. For you to deny otherwise is to do nothing but prove your ignorance, and blind allegiance to a criminal fraud.
     
  10. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    wow! voter fraud was committed! it always is, and it's done by all sides. whether or not it's rampant is another issue entirely, and i don't see that proven in those links (granted, i made a perusal of them, not an in-depth reading). as to palast, he seems to have made his career saying bad things about bush and republicans, as per his book list on amazon.

    this is not proof or definitive. all of the things i read were very circumstantial (like the disenfranchisement of 94,000, half of them african american [couldn't forget to mention that, cos lord knows i would have thought they were all whites and cubans]), and while i don't have the time or interest to read scandal literature, i can certainly say that while you may read all the "facts" you can find, i question your definition of fact.

    let's make a deal. i will accept as fact everything in palast's book if you accept as fact everything Rush Limbaugh says in a given week of broadcasting. ;)
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    greg palast is NOT bill o'reilly!!!!!

    oops, i mean... :)

    actually, palast is a pretty good investigative journalist who has a lot of respect in journalistic circles.

    limbaugh, as the title goes, is just a big, fat idiot.
     
  12. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #13
    i think that limbaugh has a pretty good amount of respect in conservative circles.

    he is certainly not, however, fat anymore. and he's not an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. he's just very polarized. i refuse to let you off with ad hominems against him. ;)
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    awwwww, nuts. okay, how 'bout this:

    palast is a journalist. limbaugh is an entertainer.
     
  14. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #15
    true. but still, the language he uses (Palast) and the way he emphasizes his information is highly partisan. he doesn't seem to be as interested in uprooting voter fraud so much as uprooting republican voter fraud.

    i mean, take a look at that bit about the 94,000 people being disenfranchized. it specifically says that half of them are black. why? is it implying that the republicans think that blacks are always democrats and were targeting them for disenfranchisement? but it doesn't say anything about the other 50%. were they white? cuban? asian? what was the secret agenda on those 50%? they make it sound like focused, intentional fraud that is aimed at insuring a republican victory, when it could have just been an administerial problem. because this guy is a good investigator doesn't mean he doesn't finagle his data.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    here are the things i don't like about him:
    1. his language can be inflammatory
    2. occasionally his fact-checking is sloppy
    3. he needs a proof-reader (spelling/grammar errors)

    it's a shame, because he does do outstanding research, can present a story, and has very important things to say that few others seem willing to tackle.

    but those other points, i fear, turn off a large potential audience.

    completeness is always useful. in this particular instance, since 50% of any minority is above the national average, he may have used it to make a point that didn't necessitate specifying the completeness. still...

    and yes, w/o reviewing the story (i probably read it at some point), he's probably making the case that the county was targeted for being principally democratic.
     
  16. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #17
    -zimv20

    Don't forget deaf too. :D
     
  17. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    some military men have won the white house largely due to their reputations as a soldier like eisenhower and grant

    but others have failed at that bid like mccain and macarthur

    only time will tell if clark can take on a basically popular sitting us president
     
  18. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #19
    Everyone I know hates Bush and thinks he is a loser.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    pretty much the same here. though i ran into an old friend about a year ago -- she said she thinks bush is really cute and likes having him in office for that reason. i lost all respect for her at that point.
     
  20. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    I agree only time will tell about Clark and his ability to not only win the nomination but also the possibility of unseating an incumbent President. Thirteen months in politics is far to long a time to be making predictions.

    About your examples, McCain is very different than the others as he is a sitting senator with legislative experience. In that regard his history (if not his politics) is much more like JFK than Ike or Clark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think MacArthur every offically put his hat in the ring? He had enormous ambition, but never ran for office. If we are going back in history for people who ran only on their military record then I think you have to include people like Taylor, McClellan, and I guess Washington. Clark's similarity to any of these is interesting but hardly indicative of what his chances are.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    If memory serves, a MacArthur candidacy was floated but never became a reality.

    As for Clark, it's clear that the Republicans don't want to run against this guy. From today's LA Times:

     
  22. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    IJ, this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread on this topic. I would love to see the "talking points" that Rove and others are trying to get out to the media. It is one thing for Novak, Kristol, or Safire to be shills for the administration, but for Fineman and Newsweek magazine to blindly repeat this nonsense is an indictment of the state of journalism. Here is the spinsanity story on this subject:

    http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030925.html

    I'm glad the LA Times is trying to expose this crap.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Yes, I know this came up earlier. When I began reading this piece in the Times today I figured it was going to be about the same incident -- but it turned out to be about yet another GOP effort to sully Clark's reputation. It won't be the last, either -- of that we can be certain.
     
  24. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #25
    it really broke his spirit according to those close to him...and let's say he was not completely thrilled when ike won when it could have been him

    but imho, i don't think ike was our strongest president...but he played good golf;) :p
     

Share This Page